Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720926›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2020

Effects of early life and current housing on sensitivity to reward loss in a successive negative contrast test in pigs.

L Luo, I Reimert, E A M Graat, S Smeets, B Kemp, J E Bolhuis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Jays are sensitive to cognitive illusions.Royal Society open science · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L LuoAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
I ReimertAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
E A M GraatAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
S SmeetsAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
B KempAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
J E BolhuisAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. liesbeth.bolhuis@wur.nl.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals in a negative affective state seem to be more sensitive to reward loss, i.e. an unexpected decrease in reward size. The aim of this study was to investigate whether early-life and current enriched vs. barren housing conditions affect the sensitivity to reward loss in pigs using a successive negative contrast test. Pigs (n = 64 from 32 pens) were housed in barren or enriched conditions from birth onwards, and at 7 weeks of age experienced either a switch in housing conditions (from barren to enriched or vice versa) or not. Allotting pigs to the different treatments was balanced for coping style (proactive vs. reactive). One pig per pen was trained to run for a large reward and one for a small reward. Reward loss was introduced for pigs receiving the large reward after 11 days (reward downshift), i.e. from then onwards, they received the small reward. Pigs housed in barren conditions throughout life generally had a lower probability and higher latency to get the reward than other pigs. Proactive pigs ran overall slower than reactive pigs. After the reward downshift, all pigs ran slower. Nevertheless, reward downshift increased the latency and reduced the probability to get to the reward, but only in pigs exposed to barren conditions in early life, which thus were more sensitive to reward loss than pigs from enriched early life housing. In conclusion, barren housed pigs seemed overall less motivated for the reward, and early life housing conditions had long-term effects on the sensitivity to reward loss.

Indexed as

Housing, AnimalSus scrofaAdaptation, PsychologicalAnimalsEmotionsRewardSwineAffective stateCoping styleEarly lifeEnrichmentPigsReward loss

Identifiers

PMID31720926
PMCPMC6981316
OpenAlexW2984413730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.